Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Studying Good Practices to Lesson Drawing and Transfer: Introduction to the Causal Mechanisms Approach – A Proposal for Exchanges Among European Networks on Time-Oriented Policies

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Book cover Space–Time Design of the Public City

Part of the book series: Urban and Landscape Perspectives ((URBANLAND,volume 15))

Abstract

The work of an epistemic community, of academics and of practitioners, like a European network on time-oriented policies, refers, implicitly or explicitly, to the diffusion of ideas and good practices. However, the term ‘good practice’ is ambiguous, as it implies – for subject with learning and transfer objectives – relying on others’ accounts, which often are poor as they leave out significant causal factors (e.g. characteristics internal or/and external to organisations).

With the objective to clarify the theoretical opportunities in studying and to represent good practices in a learning perspective, this contribution presents, initially, a brief review of the public policy literature on lesson drawing and policy transfer. After that, it discusses a proposal to develop an approach based on the theory of causal mechanisms, useful to pursue an extrapolation strategy to adapt good practices in cases characterised by a different context in comparison with the original experience. Finally, a sketched case is illustrated, related to time-oriented projects by the Milan Law Court (Tribunale di Milano).

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 129.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 169.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 169.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 1.

    See Bardach (1998, 2004), (2009), Barzelay (2007), Myers et al. (2004), Veselý (2011), Wenger (2008).

  2. 2.

    See Gilardi and Radaelli (2012); May (1992); public policy literature, in the context of very different fields of research, defines learning in four categories: reflexive social learning, instrumental learning, political learning and symbolic learning. For a review, see Freeman (2006) and Grin and Loeber (2007).

  3. 3.

    One of the characteristics of smart practices is ‘getting something for nothing’: ‘Contrary to the dictum that there is no such thing as a free lunch, creative policymakers and policy implementors invest quite a lot of energy in looking for just such comestibles’ (Bardach 2009, p. 96). Here Bardach wants to demonstrate the existence of such practices that cost nothing or relatively little and are highly beneficial nonetheless. See also, for a comparison between Bardach’s proposals and other best practices literature, Veselý (2011).

  4. 4.

    In Bardach and Barzelay writing, the term ‘target-site’ identifies institutions whose working is to be improved, and the term ‘source-site’ identifies institutions providing inspiration for such expected change.

  5. 5.

    See also Bulmer et al. (2007).

  6. 6.

    There is a specific literature about learning and policy learning. See Bardach (2004), Barzelay (2007), Schneider and Ingram (1988), Radaelli (2000), Gilardi and Radaelli (2012);, Zito and Schout (2009), Sahlin-Andersson (2003), Sahlin and Wedlin (2008). See, also, Brunsson (2006) four learning models: rational analysis, emulation, experience and following the rules (tradition).

  7. 7.

    As Rose notes, there is a difference between good practice analysis and the more general objectives of lesson drawing or learning from comparative public policy: ‘Concentrating attention exclusively on best practice overlooks the benefits of learning from worst practice. A better understanding of the causes of failure in other countries can help governors avoid politically fatal mistakes’. See Rose (2005), p. 39. Furthermore, there is a difference between the analysis of best practices and benchmarking. The latter not only deals with the best cases but also with alternative ways of solving a problem (id. 39).

  8. 8.

    Adapted from Dolowitz (2009, p. 13) and Dolowitz and Marsh (2000, pp. 9–12). See also Bennett (1991, p. 218), who takes into account policy goals, policy content, policy instruments, policy outcomes and policy style. For comments and critics, see James and Lodge (2003).

  9. 9.

    The simplest image of convergence is that of a number of lines converging on a point. In institutional and administrative terms, this could be thought of as many different jurisdictions adopting similar – or even identical – organisational forms, procedures, processes and instruments. See Pollitt (2000, p. 474), (2002) and (2007), Olsen and Peters (1996), Sahlin-Andersson (2003), Christensen and Lægreid (2003), OECD (2009).

  10. 10.

    Utility refers to the results and impacts obtained by a programme/project in relation to broader societal and economic needs. Utility is a very particular evaluation criterion as it makes no reference to the official objectives of the programme/project. It may be judicious to formulate a question of utility when the objectives of a programme/project have been badly defined or when there are many unexpected impacts.

  11. 11.

    The Common Assessment Framework is the model of organisational self-assessment promoted by the European Community for European public administrations. See Eipa (European Institute of Public Administration) (2006).

  12. 12.

    See in general Rogers (1983), (2003), Berry and Berry (1990), (2007), Tornatzky and Klein (1982), Weiland (2006), Wolman (2009), Bennett (1991), DiBella et al. (1996), Downs and Mohr (1976), Gilardi (2010), James and Lodge (2003).

  13. 13.

    See also the proposal of Dolowitz and Marsh, who distinguish among copying (which involves direct and complete transfer), emulation (which involves transfer of the ideas behind the policy or programme), combinations (which involves mixtures of several different policies) and inspiration (where policy in another jurisdiction may inspire a policy change, but where the final outcome does not actually draw upon the original) (Dolowitz and Marsh 2000, p. 13). See also Dolowitz and Marsh (1996), Dolowitz (2003), (2009), Bulmer et al. (2007). See for a model of isomorphic behaviours DiMaggio and Powell (1991).

  14. 14.

    The evaluation research literature is vast; see as example Mohr (1995); Weiss (1998); European Union/Regional Policy (2009). See also Bretschneider et al. (2005); they propose a framework derived from the economic theory of production to evaluate best practices.

  15. 15.

    See Merton (1968a, b, c). Authors in sociology and political disciplines and sociology find that much of Tocqueville’s work relies heavily on a sort of mechanistic explanations; see, for example, ‘Democracy in America’ and ‘The Old Regime and the French Revolution’ (Elster 2005; Boudon 2005).

  16. 16.

    If we specify the apparently mild condition that individual elements are contented if at least 50 % (say) of their immediate neighbours are of their own type, and if those who are discontented according to this criterion move to the nearest spaces where they are contented, and this process is repeated until every element is contented, then Schelling showed that the result is extreme segregation, although none of the individuals required it for their contentment and their human counterparts may even have preferred less segregation (Schelling 1969, 2005).

  17. 17.

    Dissonance is stipulated to arise when a person holds two or more ‘cognitions’ that are inconsistent with one another. See Festinger’s theory of cognitive dissonance.

  18. 18.

    The authors underline the fact that environmental, cognitive and relational mechanisms can intertwine.

  19. 19.

    See Dente (2012) and European Union/Espon (2012), Bardach (2004), Radaelli (2010), Ongaro (2011), Melloni (2012).

  20. 20.

    See Scharpf (1997) and Dente (2011).

  21. 21.

    Methodological aspects and models about how to conduct case studies within a causal mechanisms perspective are discussed in Barzelay and Cortàzar Velarde (2004), Cortàzar (2005), Barzelay (2007), Barzelay and Thompson (2010), Ongaro (2011). See also Abbott (2001), McAdam et al. (2003), Ragin (1987), Stake (1995) for an introduction to case study research.

  22. 22.

    See Castelli and Xilo (2010) and Tribunale di Milano (2011).

  23. 23.

    See Tribunale di Milano (2011).

  24. 24.

    See also Barbera (2004).

  25. 25.

    See about quality in judicial structures Contini and Carnevali (2010); about Milan Law Court Castelli and Xilo (2010).

  26. 26.

    See for an explanation of the concept: Amin (1999), Amin and Thrift (1995), Amin and Roberts (2006), European Union/Espon (2012).

References

  • Abbott A (2001) Time matters. On theory and method. The University of Chicago Press, Chicago/London

    Google Scholar 

  • Amin A (1999) An institutional perspective on regional economic development. Int J Urban Reg Res 23(3):365–378

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Amin A, Roberts J (2006) Communities of practices? Varieties of situated learning. Paper prepared for EU network for excellence: dynamics of institutions and markets in Europe (DIME), pp 1–46

    Google Scholar 

  • Amin A, Thrift N (1995) Globalisation, institutional ‘thickness’ and the local economy. In: Healey P, Cameron S, Davoudi S, Graham S, Madani-Pour A (eds) Managing cities, the new urban context. Wiley, New York, pp 91–108

    Google Scholar 

  • Barbera F (2004) Meccanismi sociali. Elementi di sociologia analitica. Il Mulino, Bologna

    Google Scholar 

  • Barbera F (2006) A star is born? The authors, principles and objectives of analytical sociology. Rev Sociol 80:31–50

    Google Scholar 

  • Bardach E (1998) Getting agencies to work together: the practice and theory of managerial craftsmanship. Brookings Institution Press, Washington, DC

    Google Scholar 

  • Bardach E (2004) Presidential address – the extrapolation problem: how can we learn from the experience of others? J Policy Anal Manage 23(2):205–220

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bardach E (2009) Smart (best) practices research: understanding and making use of what look like good ideas from somewhere else. In: Bardach E (ed) A practical guide for policy analysis. The eightfold path to more effective problem solving. Chatham House Publishers, New York, pp 95–110

    Google Scholar 

  • Barzelay M (2007) Learning from second-hand experience: methodology for extrapolation-oriented case research. Governance 20(3):521–543

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Barzelay M, Cortàzar Velarde JC (2004) Una guìa pràctica para la elaboraciòn de estudios de caso sobre buenas practicas en gerencia social. Instituto Interamericano para el Desarrollo Social (INDES) and Banco Interamericano de Desarrollo, Washington, DC

    Google Scholar 

  • Barzelay M, Thompson F (2010) Making public management a design-oriented science. Paper presented at the Scuola Superiore di Pubblica Amministrazione (Italian High School of Public Administration) and SDA Bocconi University International Conference on: reforming the public sector: how to make the difference, Rome, 2–3 Dec 2010

    Google Scholar 

  • Bennett CJ (1991) What is policy convergence and what causes it? Br J Polit Sci 21(2):215–233

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Berry FS, Berry WD (1990) State lottery adoptions as policy innovations: an event history analysis. Am Polit Sci Rev 84(2):395–415

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Berry FS, Berry WD (2007) Innovation and diffusion models in policy research. In: Sabatier PA (ed) Theories of the policy process. Westwiew, Boulder, pp 223–260

    Google Scholar 

  • Boudon R (2005) Social mechanisms without black boxes. In: Hedström P, Swedberg R (eds) Social mechanisms. An analytical approach to social theory. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp 172–203

    Google Scholar 

  • Bretschneider S, Marc-Aurele FJ Jr, Wu J (2005) ‘Best practice’ research: a methodological guide for the perplexed. J Public Adm Res Theory 15:307–323

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brunsson N (2006) Mechanisms of hope. Copenhagen Business School Press, Kristianstad

    Google Scholar 

  • Bulmer S, Dolowitz D, Humphreys P, Padgett S (2007) Policy transfer in European Union Governance. Routledge, London/New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Castelli C, Xilo G (2010) Il piano strategico della giustizia nella città di Milano. Quaderni di giustizia e organizzazione 6; see www.innovazioneperarea.it

    Google Scholar 

  • Christensen T, Lægreid P (2003) A transformative perspective on administrative reforms. In: Christensen T, Lægreid P (eds) New public management: the transformation of ideas and practice. Ashgate, Aldershot, pp 13–39

    Google Scholar 

  • Contini F, Carnevali D (2010) The quality of justice: from conflicts to politics. In: Coman R, Dallara C (eds) Handbook of judicial politics. Editura Institutul European Iasi, Iasi, pp 157–194

    Google Scholar 

  • Cortàzar JC (2005) Learning from best practices in public and social management: a methodological proposal. Paper for Unite Nations Public Administration Network

    Google Scholar 

  • Dente B (2011) Le decisioni di policy. Il Mulino, Bologna

    Google Scholar 

  • Dente B (2012) Progress in institutional capacity across the EU. A research project based on mechanisms. Presentation at the Espon/Instead conference: enhancing institutional capacity for a more effective cohesion policy on the ground: lessons from the mechanisms’ approach. Barcelona, UAB-Universitat Autonoma de Barcelona, 28–29 June 2012

    Google Scholar 

  • DiBella AJ, Nevis EC, Gould JM (1996) Understanding organizational learning capability. J Manag Stud 33(3):361–379

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • DiMaggio P, Powell WW (1991) The iron cage revisited: institutional isomorphism and collective rationality in organization fields. In: Powell W, DiMaggio P (eds) The new institutionalism in organizational analysis. The University of Chicago Press, Chicago/London, pp 63–82

    Google Scholar 

  • Dolowitz DP (2003) A policy-maker’s guide to policy transfer. Polit Q 74(1):101–108

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dolowitz DP (2009) Learning-by-observing: information use in the policy transfer process. Pacte/CNRS Cahier de Recherche/Working Papers n. 9

    Google Scholar 

  • Dolowitz DP, Marsh D (1996) Who learns what from whom? A review of the policy transfer literature. Polit Stud 44(2):343–357

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dolowitz DP, Marsh D (2000) Learning from abroad: the role of policy transfer in contemporary policy-making. Governance 13(1):5–24

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Downs GW Jr, Mohr LB (1976) Conceptual issues in the study of innovations. Adm Sci Q 21(4):700–714

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • EIPA (European Institute of Public Administration), CAF (Common Assessment Framework) Resource Center (eds) (2006) CAF 2006. The Common Assessment Framework (CAF): improving an organization through self-assessment. EIPA, Maastricht

    Google Scholar 

  • Elster J (2005) A plea for mechanisms. In: Hedström P, Swedberg R (eds) Social mechanisms. An analytical approach to social theory. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp 45–73

    Google Scholar 

  • Elster J (2007) Explaining social behavior. More nuts and bolts for the social sciences. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • European Union/Espon (2012) Instead. Institutional capacity for territorial development. Final report: version 13/04/2012. Coordinated by Bruno Dente in partnership with Diap-Politecnico di Milano, Politecnico di Torino, IGOP-UniversitatAutònoma de Barcelona, Science Po-Université de Lyon, IRS-Istituto per la ricercasociale Milano. Espon and Politecnico di Milano, Bruxelles/Milano

    Google Scholar 

  • European Union/Regional Policy (2009) Counterfactual Impact Evaluation. Evalsed: the resource for the evaluation of socio-economic development. http://ec.europa.eu/regional_policy/sources/docgener/evaluation/evalsed/sourcebooks/method_techniques/counterfactual_impact_evaluation/index_en.htm. Accessed 15 Apr 2012

  • Falleti TG, Lynch JF (2009) Context and causal mechanisms in political analysis. Comp Polit Stud 42(9):1143–1166

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Freeman R (2006) Learning in public policy. In: Moran M, Rein M, Goodin RE (eds) Oxford handbook of public policy. Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp 367–388

    Google Scholar 

  • Gilardi F (2010) Who learn from what in policy diffusion processes? Am J Polit Sci 54(3):650–666

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gilardi F, Radaelli C (2012) Governance and learning. In: Levy-Faur D (ed) Oxford handbook of governance. Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp 155–168

    Google Scholar 

  • Goldthorpe JH (2001) Causation, statistics, and sociology. Eur Sociol Rev 17(1):1–20

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Goldthorpe JH (2007) On sociology, 2nd edn, vol 1. Stanford University Press, Stanford

    Google Scholar 

  • Granovetter M (1978) Threshold models of collective behavior. Am J Sociol 83(6):1420–1443

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Grin J, Loeber A (2007) Theories of policy learning: agency, structure and change. In: Fisher F, Miller GJ, Sidney MS (eds) Handbook of public policy analysis: theory, politics, and methods. CRC Press, Boca Raton, pp 201–219

    Google Scholar 

  • Hedström P, Swedberg R (2005a) Social mechanisms: an introductory essay. In: Hedström P, Swedberg R (eds) Social mechanisms. An analytical approach to social theory. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp 1–31

    Google Scholar 

  • Hedström P, Swedberg P (eds) (2005b) Social mechanisms. An analytical approach to social theory. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge

    Google Scholar 

  • Hedström P, Ylikoski P (2010) Causal mechanisms in the social sciences. Annu Rev Sociol 36:49–67

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • James O, Lodge M (2003) The limitations of ‘policy transfer’ and ‘lesson drawing’ for public policy research. Polit Stud Rev 1(2):179–193

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kuorikoski J (2009) Two concepts of mechanism: componential causal systems and abstract form of interaction. Int Stud Philos Sci 23(2):143–160

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Levitt B, March JG (1988) Organizational learning. Annu Rev Sociol 14:319–340

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Levitt B, March JG (1995) Chester Barnard and the intelligence of learning. In: Williamson OE (ed) Organization theory. From Chester Barnard to the present and beyond. Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp 11–37

    Google Scholar 

  • Machamer P, Darden L, Craver CF (2000) Thinking about mechanisms. Philos Sci 67(1):1–25

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mahoney J (2001) Beyond correlational analysis: recent innovations in theory and method. Sociolo Forum 16(3):575–593

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • May P (1992) Policy learning and failure. J Public Policy 12(4):331–354

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mayntz R (2003) Mechanisms in the analysis of macro-social phenomena. Max-Plank-Institut für Gesellschaftsforschung, Working paper 03/3, Apr 2003

    Google Scholar 

  • McAdam D, Tarrow S, Tilly C (2003) Dynamics of contention. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge

    Google Scholar 

  • Melloni E (2012) Un’analisi dell’Impact Assessment europeo con metodo estrapolativo. Cosa imparare dale buone pratiche e come utilizzarle altrove. PhD dissertation. University of Pavia, Pavia

    Google Scholar 

  • Merton RK (1968a) Social theory and social structure. The Free Press, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Merton RK (1968b) The self-fulfilling prophecy. In: Merton RK (ed) Social theory and social structure. The Free Press, New York, pp 475–490

    Google Scholar 

  • Ministry of Justice (Ministero della giustizia) (2012) Depositi telematici in ambito civile aprile 2011-aprile 2012. http://pst.giustizia.it/PST/resources/cms/documents/

  • Merton RK (1968c) On sociological theories of the middle range. In: Merton RK (ed) Social theory and social structure. The Free Press, New York, pp 39–73

    Google Scholar 

  • Mohr LB (1995) Impact analysis for program evaluation. Sage, Thousand Oaks

    Google Scholar 

  • Myers S, Smith HP, Martin LM (2004) Conducting best practices in public affairs. Working paper N. 3, Center for Community Partnership College of Health and Public Affairs. University of Central, Orlando

    Google Scholar 

  • OECD (2009) Measuring government activity. OECD, Paris

    Google Scholar 

  • Olsen JP, Peters BG (1996) Learning from experience? In: Olsen JP, Peters BG (eds) Lessons from experience. Experiential learning in administrative reforms in eight democracies. Scandinavian University Press, Oslo, pp 1–35

    Google Scholar 

  • Ongaro E (2011) A protocol to extrapolation of ‘best’ practices: how to draw lessons from one experience to improve public management in another situation. Research and policy papers of the Northumbria University. Northumbria University, Newcastle Upon Tyne

    Google Scholar 

  • Ostrom E (2002) Governing the commons. The evolution of institutions for collective action. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge

    Google Scholar 

  • Overman ES, Boyd KJ (1994) Best practice research and post-bureaucratic reform. J Public Adm Res Theory 4(1):67–83

    Google Scholar 

  • Pawson R, Tilley N (1998) Realistic evaluation. Sage Publications, London

    Google Scholar 

  • Pollitt C (2000) Is the emperor in his underwear? An analysis of the impacts of public management reform. Public Manag 2(2):181–199

    Google Scholar 

  • Pollitt C (2002) Public management reform: reliable knowledge and international experience. Paper supporting presentation to OECD Global Forum on Governance, London School of Economics, 2–3 Dec 2002

    Google Scholar 

  • Pollitt C (2007) Convergence or divergence: what has been happening in Europe? In: Pollitt C, van Thiel S, Homburg V (eds) New public management in Europe. Adaptation and alternatives. Palgrave Macmillan, Houndmills/Basingstoke/New York, pp 10–25

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Pollitt C, Bouckaert G (2011) Public management reform: a comparative analysis – new public management, governance, and the Neo-Weberian state. Oxford University Press, Oxford

    Google Scholar 

  • Radaelli C (2000) Policy transfer in the European union: institutional isomorphism as source of legitimation. Governance 13(1):25–43

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Radaelli C (2010) How to learn from the international experience: impact assessment in Nederland. Final report. Report prepared with Lorenzo Allio, Andrea Renda and Lorna Schrefler. University of Exeter-Centre for European Governance, Exeter

    Google Scholar 

  • Ragin CC (1987) The comparative method. Moving beyond qualitative and quantitative strategies. University of California Press, Berkeley/Los Angeles

    Google Scholar 

  • Rogers EM (1983) Diffusion of innovations, 3rd edn. The Free Press, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Rogers EM (2003) Diffusion of innovations, 5th edn. The Free Press, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Rose R (1991) What is lesson-drawing? J Public Policy 11(1):3–30

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rose R (1993) Lesson-drawing in public policy: a guide in learning across time and space. Chatham House, Chatham

    Google Scholar 

  • Rose R (2001) Ten step in learning lessons from abroad. Future governance papers 1. Economic and Research Council, Swindon

    Google Scholar 

  • Rose R (2003) What’s wrong with best practice policies and why relevant practices are better? In: House of Commons Public Administration Select Committee (ed) On target? Government by measurement. The Stationery Office, Ltd, London, pp 308–317

    Google Scholar 

  • Rose R (2005) Learning from comparative public policy: a practical guide. Routledge, London/New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Sahlin K, Wedlin L (2008) Circulating ideas: imitation, translation and editing. In: Greenwood R, Oliver C, Sahlin K, Suddaby R (eds) Oxford handbook of organizational institutionalism. Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp 218–2242

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Sahlin-Andersson K (2003) National, international, and transnational constructions of new public management. In: Christensen T, Lægreid P (eds) New public management: the transformation of ideas and practice. Ashgate, Aldershot, pp 43–72

    Google Scholar 

  • Scharpf FW (1997) Games real actors play. Actor-centered instrumentalism in policy research. Westview, Boulder/Oxford

    Google Scholar 

  • Schelling TC (1969) Models of segregations. Am Econ Rev 59(2):488–493

    Google Scholar 

  • Schelling TC (2005) Social mechanisms and social dynamics. In: Hedström P, Swedberg R (eds) Social mechanisms. An analytical approach to social theory. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp 32–44

    Google Scholar 

  • Schneider A, Ingram H (1988) Systematically pinching ideas: a comparative approach to policy design. J Public Policy 8(1):61–80

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schön D (1983) The reflexive practitioner. Basic Books, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Schön D (1988) Toward a marriage of artistry and applied science in the architectural design studio. J Archit Educ 41(4):16–24

    Google Scholar 

  • Stake RE (1995) The art of case study research. Sage, Thousand Oaks

    Google Scholar 

  • Tornatzky LG, Klein KJ (1982) Innovation characteristics and innovation-adoption implementation: a meta-analysis of findings. IEEE Trans Eng Manag 29(1):28–43

    Google Scholar 

  • Tribunale di Milano (2011) Bilancio di responsabilitàsociale 2011. http://www.tribunale.milano.it/index.phtml?Id_VMenu=341. Accessed 23 June 2012

  • Veselý A (2011) Theory and methodology of best practice research: a critical review of the current state. Cent Eur J Public Policy 5(2):98–117

    Google Scholar 

  • Weiland K (2006) Bounded rationality and policy diffusion: social sector reform in Latin America. Princeton University Press, Princeton/Oxford

    Google Scholar 

  • Weiss CH [1972] (1998) Evaluation, 2nd edn. Prentice Hall, Upple Saddle River

    Google Scholar 

  • Wenger E (2008) Communities of practice: learning, meaning, and identity. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge

    Google Scholar 

  • Wolman H (2009) Policy transfer: what we know about what transfers, how it happens, and how to do it. Presentation to Gastein European Forum for Health Policy. Working paper 038 of the GW Institute of Public Policy, pp. 1–31. The George Washington University, Washington, DC

    Google Scholar 

  • Xilo G (2013) L’informatica come vettore di innovazione organizzativa della giustizia: il caso del Processo Civile Telematico. In: Sciacca M et al (eds) Giustizia in bilico. Aracne Editrice, Roma, pp 393–414

    Google Scholar 

  • Zito AR, Schout A (2009) Learning theory reconsidered: EU integration theories and learning. J Eur Public Policy 16(8):1103–1123

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Architecture and Urban Studies, Politecnico di Milano, Milan, Italy

    Giancarlo Vecchi

Authors
  1. Giancarlo Vecchi
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Giancarlo Vecchi .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Inst. f. Stadtplanung/ Regionalplanung, TU Berlin, Hardenbergstr. 40A, Berlin, 10623, Berlin, Germany

    Dietrich Henckel

  2. und Regionalplanung, Stadt‐ und Regionalökonomie Sekr. B4, Institut für Stadt‐, Hardenberg‐Str. 40a, Berlin, 10623, Germany

    Susanne Thomaier

  3. Institut für Stadt- und Regionalplanung, TU Berlin, Hardenbergstr. 40a, Berlin, 10623, Berlin, Germany

    Benjamin Könecke

  4. , Dipartimento di Architettura e Pianifica, Politecnico di Milano, Via Golgi 39, Milano, 20133, Italy

    Roberto Zedda

  5. , Dipartimento di Architettura E Pianifica, Politecnico di Milano, Via Golgi 39, Milano, 20133, Italy

    Stefano Stabilini

Appendix A Non-exhaustive List of Causal Mechanism and Related Definitions

Appendix A Non-exhaustive List of Causal Mechanism and Related Definitions

Sources: Bardach (2004), European Union/Espon (2012), Falleti and Lynch (2009), McAdam et al. (2003), Hedström and Swedberg (2005a, b), Radaelli (2010), Gilardi and Radaelli (2012), Melloni (2012), Weiland (2006).

Table 5
Full size table

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2013 Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Vecchi, G. (2013). Studying Good Practices to Lesson Drawing and Transfer: Introduction to the Causal Mechanisms Approach – A Proposal for Exchanges Among European Networks on Time-Oriented Policies. In: Henckel, D., Thomaier, S., Könecke, B., Zedda, R., Stabilini, S. (eds) Space–Time Design of the Public City. Urban and Landscape Perspectives, vol 15. Springer, Dordrecht. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-007-6425-5_18

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation